Well, you're an American, right? What else would they say?

We'll be in power and we'll not care a shit about you, but keep voting for us.

Perhaps that would be at least honest? — ssu

Neither one of the US candidates appeals to me. The government is to govern things, not run them.
Both candidates are fighting over who sits in the driver's seat. But what needs to be regulated and how can that be done?

I believe everyone has good intentions but not enough knowledge for good judgments.

Donald Trump might now indeed be what you say. But he is a sign of something much bigger, much more powerful, more pervasive than any one single person is or could be. Even if he doesn't get reelected, it's quite possible that someone just like him, and worse, will be. Because this is what America is all about. — baker

What is America all about?

Yes, I see this. But there is a tenuous, speculative connection to fascism involved in the analysis. Is there something deeper being indicated here? — AmadeusD

We know fascism for its violence rather than its bureaucratic and economic order. I am offering a link about how popular fascism was in the 30's. I have chosen just one paragraph that got my attention...

Certain British intellectuals were perhaps the most smitten of anyone by fascism. George Bernard Shaw announced in 1927 that his fellow “socialists should be delighted to find at last a socialist [Mussolini] who speaks and thinks as responsible rulers do.”4 He helped form the British Union of Fascists whose “Outline of the Corporate State,” according to the organization’s founder, Sir Oswald Mosley, was “on the Italian Model.” While visiting England, the American author Ezra Pound declared that Mussolini was “continuing the task of Thomas Jefferson.”5 https://mises.org/mises-wire/rise-economic-fascism-america — Mises Wire • Thomas J. DiLorenzo

There are so many ways this discussion could go. Always humans have worked for social security and we have tried many different ways of meeting the needs of the people. Fascism is one of them and its bureaucratic model was adopted by the US in 30s when Hoover and Roosevelt worked together to design big government. This shifted individual power to governmental power, and with this comes promises that our candidates will meet all our needs. Trump goes so far as to claim we will never have to vote again if he is elected because he will resolve all our problems for us. Kamala Harris promises to raise minimum wages but I don't know how this can happen without inflation and closing businesses that depend on cheap labor. I don't think we know enough to make good judgments and this thread is about global ramifications.

Through this forum, I have learned what I consider a fascist order is throughout Europe and this must be so because of the competition for world resources. We must have strong governments to compete and that is not the democracy that came out of the Enlightenment. Technology is changing our lives a lot and that includes the power of governments. Elements of fascism and for sure technology make a government strong. Education is very important to all this.

Nevermind the fascist point. I had something else in mind. :yikes: — Wheatley

But if we want to understand reality perhaps we should discuss what fascism has to do with the strength of the US. The US is not the democracy it defended in world wars. Both the Republicans and Democrats are promising to take care of us, leaving us nothing to do but obey and be thankful we are so well cared for. Tocqueville 1831.

We're on the same page regarding the interrelationship of: science, art, ecology. Now, in this conversation, I want to detail in some stuff that talks in a rational and general manner about what the differences are between the two titans: science/art, and how those modal differences are mediated by the unifying synchro-mesh of ecology.
a day ago — ucarr

Can you turn that into a four-dimensional pentahedron? That is a sincere question, not an attempt to inform anyone of anything. Here is the deal for me, I am uncomfortable with either/or arguments. either or arguments are mostly this and that. We live in a 4-dimensional reality so maybe we want to consider four dimensional patterns in statements of truth?

I heard, in India, it is assumed when we speak of one thing, we speak of its opposite. In the west we are very materialistic and seem to ignore movement and change. I Ching the Chinese Book of Change always includes the change. It takes into consideration the unfolding of seasons and climate. At times the climate will favor change and at other times the climate will prevent change.

I do not understand math but I keep trying. It is clear to me that the failure to understand math keeps my IQ low and I am qualified to discuss my opinion but not to participate in arguments based on empirical information and math. Without an intelligent thought of my own, I will quote from the book "Mind Tools" by Rucker.

"Number, space, logic- the most basic concepts of mathematics. Why are they so fundamental? Because they reflect essential features of our minds and the world around us. Mathematics has evolved from certain simple and universal properties of the world and the human brain. That our mathematics is effective for manipulating concepts is perhaps no more surprising than that our legs and good at walking."......

Rucker argues "It is evident that the thought forums of dyad, triad, and tetrad are objectively given archetypes. They correspond to the very basic numbers 2, 3, 4. The number 5 is also quite basic, and we might suppose there to be a thought form consisting of five related concepts. Let's call this form a pentad. One way of drawing a pentad is as the "quincunx" a legitimate dictionary word meaning "an arrangement of five things with one at each corner and one in the middle of a square.

This is, of course, a flattened picture. Just as the quaternity takes its truest form if we let it pop up into a three-dimensional tetrahedron, it turns out that a pentad takes its most natural shape if we let it spring out into a four-dimensional "pentahedron".

What do you think? for me that relates to so many other sources of math information that I have a hard time understanding.

The essentially difference between the sciences and the humanities is cross-culturalism. Science, as a method, is not culture bound (in the general sense). It's motivation is simplicity of theory, not outcomes.

Everything in the humanities is culture-bound (in the general sense) and outcomes are the policy-driving forces. These aren't problems, though. — AmadeusD

This is impressive thinking. :up:

We have a problem. According to this link Persians were comparatively more civilized than those who wrote the Bible. It had slaves but slaves were paid and as protected by law as the free person. Compared to the Bible which has different laws for slaves than the protection of law of a free man.

How did the Persians treat women?
In general, we can say that Persian women enjoyed power, influence, and economic opportunities. They were involved in the military and owned businesses, and held the same jobs as men. Some women never married or had children, but this wasn't seen as a problem.

Women in Ancient Persia: Royalty, Privileges & Tradition - Lesson

One more comment. The Prussians treated those they conquered a hell of a lot better than Christian Europeans treated indigenous people.

If democracy is discredited worldwide, the world risks regressing into a new Middle Ages, which is a deeply concerning prospect. This scenario becomes more likely if Russia defeats Ukraine in the current conflict. — Linkey

In the 1920s a newspaper printed a warning. "Given our known oil supply and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possibly war."

We know the economies of all industrial nations collapsed and the world went to war. Since then the US has made a considerable investment in controlling the world's oil supply and its national debt is out of control, because wars are expensive. Now it appears Mother Nature is also out to get us as natural disasters are also very costly. But our high-tech society still believes God is taking good care of us and we do not need to pay attention to science. However, as the Greeks believed if we don't get things right, they can go very badly. I don't think the Bible makes that so clear. We stopped educating for good moral judgment and left moral training to the Church. We want plenty of cheap gas as though reality should not get in the way of what we want. Now we hope if God doesn't take of us, AI will.

Our Declaration of Independence could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility but are we feeling responsible for our national decisions?

What we call “democracy” nowadays is dressed-up oligarchy, modelled on the Roman republic. There is a ruling class, not a body of free and sovereign people. — NOS4A2

I would love to discuss what education has to do with that. Liberal education was for those who were expected to be politically active. And being politically active meant more than voting the party ticket. Individuals in the US had authority and were not subject to policies that were made without their participation. Today, even doctors are treated like laborers working on an assembly. Teachers are no longer the authority in their classrooms.

Our reality today is not the democracy we defended in two world wars. However, I think we are modeling Germany under the Prussians who lived for war because we have so completely embraced ruling by policy that is set without the participation of those affected by the policy. That bureaucratic technology is not Roman but is the enemy we defended our democracy against in two world wars.

For instance, ancient Macedonia was more civilized than ancient Persia, even though both were monarchies. This difference can be attributed to Macedonia’s proximity to Greece and the democratic traditions of the latter. — Linkey

How do you justify that statement? Or where is the evidence? I have a book about Persia that I haven't read and no book about Macedonia. So I have no idea how Macedonia was more civilized. The Persians had impressive architecture and crafted items and art. They had religious freedom. How does that add up to being less civilized?

Nothing, I am not there.
BUT, they would only have to redistribute the provisions for six and would probably have to prepare to die a day earlier if not rescued. — Sir2u

When I did that exercise, I volunteered to leave the life boat. That response is directly related to the way I was raised. I was the oldest child and if my sister wanted I had and she wanted it, I was supposed to give it to her, because I was older. And if we were offered a piece of cake or cookie, we were to take the smallest one. It become a habit to put others first.

Another student responded in a better way. He got his seat in the life raft because he knew how to get water out of the air. I remember my WWII father believing individuals should make themselves too valuable to kill. He survived the war by being a medic. They are not put on the front line with a gun in their hands and told to walk into enemy fire. What insanity that is!

↪Athena
I don't think a planet of nonconsumers is a good idea.
— Athena

What's wrong with organisms being nonconsumers? Surely, it is better to be able to live without consuming any air, water, food, sunlight, etc.?

what kind of human being would exterminate people with disabilities
— Athena
The Nazis killed lots of disabled people. It's very sad but it happened.

Would you feel safe living next door to someone like that?
— Athena

No, I would not.

Perfectionism is dangerous. How might we avoid that?
— Athena

Cultivating empathy and compassion would help. — Truth Seeker

I think your replies are full of philosophical potential. I am listening to a professor who is very careful with defining words and as he defines life, if something is not consuming and reproducing it is not life. Processing energy is fundamental to life. If something is not doing that, it is not living.

Your reply to living next door to a killer certainly has philosophical potential.

Would it matter if it were a man or woman who caught a spouse cheating, or if the person killed in a war, or someone who killed another in the process of a robbery?

I really like holding concepts of empathy and compassion counteracting perfectionism and in its extreme killing people to purify society. We might expand on that thought. During the Middle Ages in different places at different times, one religious group killed another believing they were preparing earth for the second coming of Jesus. So your notion can have individual meaning or social meaning. I hope you have something profound to say about the importance of our words as we talk to ourselves and also as we share ideas with others.

Did you checkout how much certain countries actually hold in reserve? And most grains can last decades in the correct conditions. — Sir2u

Yes I read that link and promptly fell asleep. :lol: :cry: I have to use a machine to keep me breathing when I sleep and just this morning with Truth Seeker's prompting I discovered my machine is not working properly. Sorry everyone, I am out of order and not functioning properly.

I believe the link said wheat can be held for 8 years. I really doubt that would be healthy. I want my food fresh. I also see a need for holding food in reserve and with a population the size of China that has to be a huge challenge.

While there is concern for feeding everyone, I want to mention what they tell mothers on an airplane. When the oxygen masks fall put it on yourself so you have the ability to help the child. Self-sacrifice can be a very bad idea when that means being of no use to others.

That makes me think of a common thought exercise used in many college classes. There are 6 people on a life raft with enough provisions for 5. What do you do?

We should certainly use contraceptives to keep our population at an optimum level for the Earth. I am not suggesting that we should be encouraging people to be freeloaders. I am suggesting collective equal ownership and contribution based on ability and receiving based on needs. I know a thirty-year-old autistic man who is still in nappies and is non-speaking. His condition severely limits what he can do. The Nazis would have executed him. I once met someone who believed in the ideology that if you can't defend your life you don't have the right to live. I believe that all living things have a right to life, not just the ones that can defend their lives. Vegan egalitarianism will reduce the amount of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death on Earth. It would be even better if we could genetically engineer all living things to be nonconsumers so that they can exist without consuming any air, water and food. — Truth Seeker

Oh my, I don't think a planet of nonconsumers is a good idea. On the other hand, one has to wonder what kind of human being would exterminate people with disabilities. Would you feel safe living next door to someone like that?

I think that is extremism and the many years of the Reformation were years of extremism. People wanted the best we could achieve, and that made them willing to kill of willing to risk their own lives. Perfectionism is dangerous. How might we avoid that?

I don't like the focus on meeting people's needs as Sparta did. Athens did not have the same focus on meeting needs but was focused on creating opportunities. One diminishes the commonwealth and the other increases the commonwealth.

France kept its economy hampered with decisions that favored the wealthy. The Dutch developed such a good economy they could go into banking and make even more money.

Economics is a hard subject and perhaps it is one of the most important things for us to understand. The only thing I am confident of is focusing on opportunity gets better results, than focusing on needs.

This looks interesting
Kiva: Make a loan, change a life

Kiva
https://www.kiva.org
Kiva is the world's first online lending platform. For as little as $25 you can lend to an entrepreneur around the world. Learn more here.
‎How Kiva works · ‎Borrow · ‎Learn more about Kiva's mission · ‎Loans by category

But feeding people who go on to have children who will also be dependent on receiving food, increases the problem. We can not keep increasing the human population. We live on a finite planet and need to base our decisions on that.

I just looked up how long wheat can be stored and that is 8 to 10 years. I am not opposed to storing food. I don't mind passing out money but I am not going to empty my bank account so today someone has some money. Each individual and each country must have a reserve for unexpected events. If a nation is not achieving this goal we need to know why and resolve the problem.

I am strongly in favor of birth control practices. It really bothers me that our economies demand growth and that means we are building our city over more and more farmland! This is insane. Not all land is good farmland and we should be protecting it. We should also leave land and resources for the animals we share this planet with.

I am listening to history lectures from the "The Great Courses" and European countries were made poor by kings who insisted on wars that did nothing for their countries. They were so far in debt all their income had to go to bankers who funded the wars. It is totally insane behavior and we are still doing it. However, I applaud the brave souls who have accused the Israel and Hamas leaders of war crimes. I hope they carry this through and actually act on this decision.

Health and welfare is not charity, it is a state's obligation to its people that pay taxes and healthcare from their wages. — Sir2u

That is an opinion. I have dealt with medical personnel who believe Medicaid is charity. The last time I went to the Social Security office the person I had to turn to for information considered Supplemental Security Income to be charity. And these people announce that in such a demeaning manner I want to crawl away and go hide in a hole.

Military spending is different from military aid to other countries, but I would like to see the elimination of both. And they are not my allies either, I am not an American. — Sir2u

So if a nation were bombing your country would still disapprove of the US providing weapons for defense? What can be done to end the threat of war and the expense of war?

↪Athena You keep ignoring my points. My points remain true even if you keep ignoring them instead of acknowledging them. — Truth Seeker

Okay I have read your links but I am not sure what your points are. Can you list them?

Holy crapola, that is one bunch of rolled up blah blah blah. — Sir2u

That was disrespectful. Time for me to move on.

Maybe because we are not interested in finding out anything about you. Give us a clue to where you live or your name and I am sure we could come up with something though. — Sir2u

I talk about myself in the forum all the time. I live in Oregon. USA. I am elderly and at the moment focusing on learning about the Renaissance and Reformation. I am low income and like to give money away when it is a free choice. Not so much when it is over $5,000 in car repairs for a car that in the Bluebook is worth $500. :lol:

If the world was a moral place place there would be no charities, they would not be needed. — Sir2u

That recent high isn't the result of a slow climb, nor is it due to inflation. In constant dollars, U.S. foreign aid obligations jumped from $56.3 billion in 2021 to $70.4 billion in 2022, the latest year for which final data is available from a federal tracker.Jan 18, 2024

Countries That Receive the Most Foreign Aid From the U.S https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/countries-that-receive-the-most-foreign-aid-from-the-u-s#:~:text=That%20recent%20high%20isn't,available%20from%20a%20federal%20tracker.

[/quote]Defense spending by the United States accounted for nearly 40 percent of military expenditures by countries around the world in 2023, according to recently released figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). U.S. defense spending increased by $55 billion from 2022 to 2023, in part due to additional military aid sent to support Ukraine in its ongoing conflict. The United States spends more on defense than the next nine countries combined. https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2024/04/the-united-states-spends-more-on-defense-than-the-next-9-countries-combined [/quote] There is a graph at this link saying the defense spending in $916 Billion.

The defense spending is quite a bit more than the foreign aid spending, but the foreign spending does not include the cost of dealing with immigrants. I don't like the wording of this next link but the facts are important.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—This week, the House Committee on Homeland Security majority, led by Chairman Mark E. Green, MD (R-TN), released a shocking new interim report as part of its ongoing, comprehensive oversight investigation into Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and President Joe Biden’s reckless open-borders policies that have facilitated in the worst border crisis in American history. This report details the immense financial costs of the unprecedented border crisis being borne by American taxpayers, including the costs for health care, shelter, education, and law enforcement, as well as costs forced on private property owners and businesses. According to one estimate, housing and other services just to those who have been released into the United States on Mayorkas’ watch, or entered as known gotaways, could exceed $451 billion. https://homeland.house.gov/2023/11/16/what-they-are-saying-homeland-majoritys-fourth-interim-report-on-the-financial-cost-of-secretary-mayorkas-border-crisis/

So if we add $70 billion and $451 billion we get $521 billion and if we look at this as charity we can add another trillion to this.

The United States' welfare budget totaled $1.101 trillion in fiscal year 2023, or 18% of all federal outlays. Eight different federal agencies run welfare. This analysis pulls information from the agencies to show a combined federal welfare budget. The welfare program listing is shown below.

welfare budget - Federal Safety Net https://www.google.com/search?q=welfare+cost+in+US&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=welfare+cost+in+US&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBRAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBxAAGIAEGKIE0gEKMTE0NzVqMGoxNagCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Maybe that means more is spent on caring for other humans than is spent on military defense. Would we like to reduce that military spending by denying military support to our allies? Would that be cost effective? :grimace: I do not like giving Israel weapons but some of them a strictly defense preventing bombs from landing. Truly defensive weapons save lives and may prevent the use of destructive weapons. I don't think the choices are simple.

How can someone become a billionaire if they have been donating most of their income throughout their life? I have donated a large percentage of my income to charities since I was four years old. How could a human become a millionaire (i.e. have USD 1,000,000 in their bank account and/or own assets of this value) if they donated most of their annual net income, never mind a billionaire? It's impossible. — Truth Seeker

Wow, I wish everyone would acknowledge what I say by adding facts to what was said.:heart: It made want to read the link carefully. I am so pleased that the rich are getting richer because that means it is possible to increase wealth.

It would help to understand what are the rules for increasing wealth? What if charities learned the rules for increasing wealth and by using those rules they became wealthy and could do more? I seriously think government needs to take control of something like say the internet or AI and get its revenue that way instead of taxing people. The problem is not knowing how to increase wealth, but not knowing how to increase wealth. Our taxing system from the past and inappropriate for a high-tech society.

If you were struggling to keep your family alive as was so in 1820 as people moved west and struggled to survive on their homesteads, and knew nothing except what your church and neighbors told you, you would not be so unhappy about our failure to provide everyone with the good life. We are demanding more for everyone because we are accustomed to abundance. This is important because it means we need to change our thinking for a new reality. WHAT TO DO WE KNOW ABOUT ECONOMICS? Please, stop talking to me about rich people being greedy, and talk to me about economics and social organization. Your notion of people being greedy and not compassionate is myth. The big lie/myth is we need to be saved and we are not moral until we are saved. The truth is God was not a loving God until people's bellies were full. Around the world people of all faiths are very caring. The poor peasants are very willing to share a meal and be gracious host to the stranger. At least the geologist I have spoken with say that is so. Hawaiians didn't need Christianity to have beautiful spirits and a good culture. Many cultures put a high value on giving.

If the world was a moral place place there would be no charities, they would not be needed. — Sir2u

Oh really? and how is that organized? In the middle ages some Christian groups were strongly in favor of communism. Perhaps you are a reincarnated anabaptist?

Anabaptism (from Neo-Latin anabaptista,[1] from the Greek ἀναβαπτισμός: ἀνά- 're-' and βαπτισμός 'baptism',[1] German: Täufer, earlier also Wiedertäufer)[a] is a Christian movement which traces its origins to the Radical Reformation in the 16th century. Anabaptists believe that baptism is valid only when candidates freely confess their faith in Christ and request to be baptized. Commonly referred to as believer's baptism, it is opposed to baptism of infants, who are not able to make a conscious decision to be baptized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism

In the late 1520s Bernard Rothmann became the leader for religious reform in the city of Münster.....

The pamphlets at first denounced Catholicism from a radical Lutheran perspective, but soon started to proclaim that the Bible called for the absolute equality of man in all matters, including the distribution of wealth. The pamphlets, which were distributed throughout northern Germany, called upon the poor of the region to join the citizens of Münster to share the wealth of the town and benefit spiritually from being the elect of Heaven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Rothmann

From what I have read the attempt to have complete equality became anarchy with people leaving their doors unlocked and people having sex with anyone whenever they pleased. The objection is there isn't even family order and I do not believe the complete lack of social order would be viable. I also do not believe a leader is equal to a follower, a peasant is equal to a scientist. Complete equality is not viable.

Have you looked at https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality ? I know that some billionaires are generous but most are not. If they were so generous from the beginning they wouldn't get to be billionaires in the first place. — Truth Seeker

This is not working. We are doing unimaginably better than in the past and can either agree with than or defend what appears to be your notion that great progress has not been made. How could you possibly know most billionaires are not generous? The answer to that question requires how you got that information. How can you know more about "them" than you know about me?

Did you look at https://www.anonymousforthevoiceless.org/kill-counter and https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality ? We slaughter more sentient organisms than ever before. Global inequality keeps growing. The rich get richer and the poor die out. — Truth Seeker

I have to run. I really regret that and I hope I have the energy to get back to the forum this afternoon. However, at the moment, I think if we limit the discussion to humans it will be more comprehensive. But if you want to include animals I think that should cover all the animals that are nearing extinction because we have taken the land and natural resources that they must have to live.

To stay on topic you might pick a moment in history when animals were slaughtered and rewrite that history, telling us how the world would be better if our past had been better. We can do a lot with a discussion like that. :grin:

Could you tell me what language the video you posted uses, I am pretty sure that it is Hindi. And if there is an English version of it. — Sir2u

Good grief that was unexpected! Here it is in English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXVAo7dVRU

Actually a lot of suffering and death could be avoided, except that no one really wants to foot the bill for it. There are mas reserves of vital grains and other food stocks around the world, but it costs a lot of money that the tax payers would bitch about to take it where it is needed. — Sir2u

Come on, people around the world are very involved with saving those suffering from famine and war.

30 Organizations Working to End Hunger

Human Rights Careers
https://www.humanrightscareers.com › magazine › orga...
Rise Against Hunger. Rise Against Hunger is a global organization the recognizes that ending hunger is more than just feeding people. The organization is driven ...
Missing: afflicted ‎| Show results with: afflicted

What the hell is going on? A few hundred years ago people didn't name their children until they were 3 years old because they were not expected to live. Today most children in modern countries live at least 70 years. What we have accomplished and continue to accomplish is amazing and everyone is writing the Christain myth that humans are miserable, self-centered pieces of shit. Something is really wrong with this upside-down mentality. How do you all justify the denial of good and caring?

Those who have, do not want to share with those who do not have. So sad — Truth Seeker

That is not true!

Here are the billionaires who give away the most money, according to Forbes
Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett has a lifetime giving of $56.7 billion. ...
Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates. ...
George Soros. ...
Michael Bloomberg. ...
MacKenzie Scott. ...
Jim and Marilyn Simons. ...
Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan. ...
Steve and Connie Ballmer.

We are biologically programmed to care about others. That comes with being a social animal.

I see your point. In that case, how do we solve the problems of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death? — Truth Seeker

We can not end death and we may not want to. I have heard the gods think we are better off because we are not immortal. :chin: Perhaps we should start a thread asking why do we want life?

The other problems of suffering. inequality and injustice, are a matter of technology and education. I am sure if the people living 300 years ago saw what we can achieve today, they would be amazed by how far we come. For a better discussion, you might start a thread for each factor, one at a time.

I think the whole world should be one egalitarian country. — Truth Seeker

Heck, many wives can't even get their husbands to help with housework and child care. I do not see egalitarianism coming any time soon. Also, I work a lot and I don't others willing to do that. I don't think a free ride brings out the best in people. A better society means every child is well cared for and has the advantages that enable him/her to be the best s/he can be. I am willing to focus on that, but that is not making people equal.

What has that got to do with the price of Polish cod? But I have no idea and I doubt you do either. — Sir2u

I love your post. I strongly disagree with you about the importance of Scholasticism, but everything else is moving in the right direction. Something that is not well known is HOW we think is as important as WHAT we think and Scholasticism taught people to think critically.



In our age of technology we are taking critical thinking for granted BUT by that I do not mean people are thinking critically. A conspiracy thinker thinks s/he is being rational but in fact they are not. They are NOT questioning the nutty ideas they believe. They are adding a new belief to the beliefs they have lived with for years and think they are being rational. What is important here is before Schalisticism people were not critical thinkers AND- :grin: I get so excited when a discussion is going well---

"Is transubstantiated bread and wine real?" Is a critical question!!! It demands questioning what is believed and it demands empirical information. Now believers believed, if it is said in the Bible that is the word of God. That doesn't really qualify as critical thinking, but no matter. The transubstantiated bread and wine are not in the Bible. :scream: It is a lie! Carrying around images of saints for their protection is also a superstitious lie.

We are dealing with superstition here and the power of the Church. If you believe the creation story, you also believe in heaven and that a person must be saved to get to heaven. How we handle our sins is vital to if we go to heaven or not, and if you are Catholic, the only way to heaven is through the Church and the Church has magic powers, such as turning bread and wine into the essence of Jesus himself. We are really talking about cannibalism here. Anyway, if you don't believe that superstitious stuff the Church is like "The King With No Clothes". Protestants thought science would reveal God as it already exposed the lie of needing the Church to go to heaven.

Through Scholasticism, people learned HOW to think. Martin Luther believed God decided who would be a master and who would be a slave/serf. That belief gave not only the Church power but also the King! When Protestants began questioning the social order that also put the whole organization of society into question!

For the modestly rich knight class, yes, they had the most to lose. Changes in the technology of war put them out of business so they depended on their land for an income and it was rumored the Catholics shouldn't even own land. Certainly not the lying Church. This was an opportunity for them to get more land and return to the higher standard of living they wanted. These educated people used their education for a war that would increase their wealth and no one would benefit more from the change in social order than the peasants.

But before it truly could, the bubonic plague and the Mongol invasions started. — Tzeentch

I could understand that part of the lectures I am learning from. Just before everything went so wrong, they had overpopulation and could not produce enough food. The plague depleted the size of the population so much that they turned to serfdom and tied the peasants to the land, stripping them of all freedom! That situation was intolerable! They justified it with Roman law, as Rome also tied people to the land to force their labor in growing food.

We appear to be food safe, but I wonder what would we do if our systems broke down and we needed more labor in our fields?

You will find comprehensive answers here:
The Theological Origins of Modernity, Michael Gillespie

And you don't even have to read the whole thing.

https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Origins-Modernity-Michael-Gillespie/dp/0226293467/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2W2DQ8DXXV8C0&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.G5iRyE9Wgb6mk6RP_S0uCt9RcZdxPmXw1qJw3WOuHEAmq5QU0qX7u7_8N_FKT6JtULdBVuCTIymlheuzkZoql3SiQBnUpQ8cm1r1kenATO19A2D4BcwW1b_ZxEF1ZbFXclZqM-QpJ84Kbacm9_kxlYPuEB9UMmV-vUOhR-ufB09Thv66GfImc8CLLRpzOjl9AoNEjdTs7gTyjHYbzRVaCzdD_P_oqyhizYONfEfUS8k.1hAKMATODsRXIHEP06_vuvR9b87bDJMLtoJJGRAtY4o&dib_tag=se&keywords=The+Theological+Origins+of+Modernity&qid=1715787555&sprefix=the+theological+origins+of+modernity%2Caps%2C108&sr=8-1

Or if you're lucky, your local library. — tim wood

Pefect!! "Exposing the religious roots of our ostensibly godless age, Michael Allen Gillespie reveals in this landmark study that modernity is much less secular than conventional wisdom suggests."

I am so happy you posted what I attempted to say in my post just before this one. I am afraid I need that book. :grimace: I already have too many books, but this particular subject is what is most interesting to me at the moment. :up:

This was all centuries after West Rome came apart, and what does Genesis have to do with it?
The thread doesn't have a clear topic. — Lionino

:lol: I accept that I do not meet a higher standard of writing. I will always be more personal than technologically correct and I will always wonder and enjoy what others think.

The importance of Genesis is the mythology that has molded the whole of Western civilization. I don't think anything is more important to societies than their shared mythology. Even for those of us who do not believe the Bible is the word of God, it is still a strong part of our lives because it is the foundation of our culture, along with the Greek and Roman classics. We can not escape it. The word "human" means moist soil. Our failure to be aware of how Christianity affects our lives does not mean we are free from that mythology.

The story of creation was not actually a christian idea, it came from African tribes and was already ancient when the christians adopted it.

The western part of the Roman empire was broken down into many little kingdoms that over centuries became larger with only one king and developed the feudal system of government.
Christianity expanded and became the major religion in western Europe and separated for the Orthodox church in the east.

Over the centuries both the church and the lords eventually became so corrupt that the peasants revolted against both.

During the Early and High Middle ages, most advancements came about through the inventiveness of the peasants, better farming methods and tool technology, the use of wind and water power.

The Late Middle Ages was when the started to re-discover the ideas of the ancient Greeks and that started the renaissance. — Sir2u

That looks like a good account of what happened. I am learning from The Great Courses and I am having a devil of time comprehending the break up of Rome and eventual development of nations. I need to see a map. It would be really cool to see a map that changed colors as people moved from one area to the next. It is easier for me to grasp a thought if I can see it.

Have you watched "Star Trek: The Next Generation"? They don't have any money. Look at the world and its history. It's full of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. The system I proposed will minimise suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. We will share everything instead of the divisive system we now have. Look what non-vegans do to sentient animals every second: — Truth Seeker

Star Trek is a fantasy. On a ship, all things are provided by the shipping company. This was so for Star Trek and the three ships Columbus led across the ocean. However, when reaching the new planet there must be a means of exchange. Hopefully, this exchange is better than "Give me everything I want and we let you live".

All social animals organize themselves around a leader and family order. Under the sun we are the same, but in relation to each other, we are not. A technological society is not as ordered around family as we once were. In the past, the whole family could determine our opportunities, such as getting a job with the railways because one's father worked for the railway, or getting the job of dog father because your uncle is the major. Technology has changed that old order and the New World Order is based on individual abilities. Today we are specialized and our job depends on our merit. This is very so in Star Trek.

There are good and bad things about this New World Order. If you want to resolve problems you must first identify what the problems are and then what the solution is. Or we can just jump to assuming the world you imagine does exist. Why does anyone do anything? How do individuals gain the ability to do anything? What values do they learn and how do they learn them? What motivates them to do anything?

It should be democratic and there should be a separation between the government and religions. Policies should promote environmental sustainability, the elimination of pollution and promote the equal rights of all sentient beings. Everyone should receive according to their needs and contribute according to their abilities. Everyone should have equal social status from conception to death. We should all be vegans. Everyone should have equal standards of living. Money should be banned. All means of production should be owned by everyone equally. — Truth Seeker

Why would people want that?

How does an economy without money work?

I think the whole world should be one egalitarian country. — Truth Seeker

And how is that organized?